Behind every book review there are two key figures: a book review editor and a reviewer. Editors decide whether a book is reviewed in their publication, when the review appears, how long it is, and who writes the review.
When many periodicals feature the same books, this does not prove that the editors of different periodicals have not made individual decisions. Before publication, editors receive news releases and printer’s proofs of certain books, signifying that the publishers will make special efforts to promote these books. They will be heavily advertised and probably be among the books that most bookstores order in quantity. Not having such books reviewed might give the impression that the editor was caught napping, whereas too many reviews of books that readers will have trouble finding in stores would be inappropriate. Editors can risk having a few of the less popular titles reviewed, but they must consider what will be newsworthy, advertised, and written about elsewhere.
If these were the only factors influencing editors, few books that stand little chance of selling well would ever be reviewed. But editors feel some concern about what might endure, and therefore listen to literary experts. A generation ago, a newspaper used a brilliant system of choosing which books to feature. The book review editor sent out a greater number of books than reviews he actually intended to publish. If a review was unenthusiastic, he reasoned that the book was not important enough to be discussed immediately, and if good reviews of enough other books came in, the unenthusiastic review might never be printed. The unenthusiastic reviewers were paid promptly anyway, but they learned that if they wanted their material to be printed, it was advisable to be kind.
Most editors print favorable and unfavorable reviews; however, the content of the review may be influenced by the editor. Some editors would actually feel that they had failed in their responsibility if they gave books by authors they admired to hostile critics or books by authors they disapproved of to critics who might favor them. Editors usually can predict who would review a book enthusiastically and who would tear it to shreds.
The passage provides information to answer which of the following questions?
Would most book review editors prefer to have books reviewed without regard to the probable commercial success of the books?
Are publishers’ efforts to persuade bookstores to order certain books generally effective?
On what basis do literary experts decide that a book is or is not important?
What criteria are used to determine the length of a particular book review?
Have book review practices in general changed significantly since a generation ago?
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 E:Have book review practices in general changed significantly since a generation ago。
因为文章指出,在一代之前,一份报纸使用了一个精妙的系统来选择哪本书进行宣传:书评编辑发出了比打算出版书评多得多的书。如果书评不热情,书评编辑就认为这本书不够重要,不值得立即讨论,而如果其他书评写得好,那么这篇不热情的书评可能永远不会被出版。因此,书评家们学会了更好地写书评,以期获得出版的机会。这表明,从一代之前到现在,书评实践总体上发生了重大变化。
我做错了,个人做题时选了A。现在试着“强行”解释一下为什么A错:
A项的一个重点词在于 prefer to:编辑是否更倾向于在不考虑书籍商业成功的可能的情况下,让书被评论?
A项对应的定位点(第三段句首):If these were the only factors influencing editors, few books that stand little chance of selling well would ever be reviewed。原文意思是:如果以上的因素是影响编辑的仅有因素,那么那些商业上不可能成功的书籍将不会被评论。这句话暗示一个事实:有一些商业上不太会成功的书籍也是会被编辑选中,加之以评论的。
但A选项并没有正确地转述这一点,相反,A将一个编辑“存在的”行为转述成了编辑”偏好的”行为:编辑确实有把商业上成功性小的书籍加以评论,但这并不代表编辑就偏向对商业不成功的书加以评论。因此A错。
欢迎讨论
If these were the only factors influencing editors, few books that stand little chance of selling well would ever be reviewed。我对这句话的理解有些不一样的地方。这里的意思是确实是“如果以上的因素是影响编辑的仅有因素,那么那些商业上不可能成功的书籍将不会被评论。”但作者说这句话的意思并不是要说编辑有时也会出一些商业上不怎么成功的书。而是说,编辑如果只依靠第二段的那些技能(出版上的推广保证、自己对书籍新闻价值的把握),她还是不能避免出版商业上不成功的书。所以这一句话后面紧接着就讲,编辑担忧(自己不清楚)什么作品能够持续流通,因而去寻求文学专家的帮助,根据文学专家的书评是正面还是负面来决定要不要出版书评。至于加上文学专家的帮助后,编辑是不是就能完全避免出版商业上不成功的书了?文章里没有说。
关键是要把代词的指代对象、转折的转折对象搞清楚,以及根据前后文梳理出逻辑。感觉英语里这种学术性/非浪漫文学类文章几乎每一句话都是逻辑环环相扣的,没有一句废话。RC题里经常会问的作者提到某物、某句话的目的是?其实就是看阅读文章的人的逻辑梳理得对不对,逻辑梳理得不对,文章就没有完全读懂。
xiexie
你的解释是对的,而不是那个song of the swallow~ 他对那句话的翻译和理解完全是错误的,还在那里傲慢得不得了
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论